stoicbird wrote:Face it america. You're a rapidly changing country. You know have females and immigrants deciding who runs your land. Within the next 4 decades America will not function as she has. She sat and watched the richest nations tear each other apart ignoring everything except her own interests.

(Emphasis, mine)This may be one of the creepier and funny things I've read in the Off Topics forum. Thanks.

stoicbird wrote:Romney is cleverer than Obama, we've seen that during the debates. Romney has more class by far and more compassion.

Face it america. You're a rapidly changing country. You know have females and immigrants deciding who runs your land. Within the next 4 decades America will not function as she has. She sat and watched the richest nations tear each other apart ignoring everything except her own interests.

I watched as a specially hand-picked group of democrats happily waved their flags waiting for Obama to make his speech. Never have I seen such a bunch of none normals in one place. That's your fucking future America, Good luck!

If I was incharge of trident I'd be giving you some of you useless fucks some friendly fire xxxxx

If he was more clevererer he would have won. Instead of embracing the more extreme of the conservative, all he had to do was maintain his obvious and true roots in moderate-land, and he'd have received many more votes, including possibly mine, and I suspect the majority. It was only when he jumped on the ultra-conservative highway, I decided to insure that didn't happen as much as possible. If he even picked a less ultra-conservative running mate, I may have considered it, but he went too far, and paid the price.

I truly, honestly and deeply hope that this has been a real education for everyone, and hopefully this time we can get some compromise instead of bitter in-fighting.

In any case, I would say the closest you should ever come close to being in charge of trident, would be maybe being allowed to chew a pack of it.

john9blue wrote:"honestly i think martin might be better off dead"

sekretar: "i go to russia and then, without comp, i hoppe, i forgot this shit who kill my nerves long time!"

Fourteen (14) of the twenty-seven (28) respondents need Reason to be employed. Of those 14 people, eight (8) are voting for Gary Johnson while the other six (6) are not voting. Of the eight (8) people who selected Gary Johnson, seven (7) gave reasons other than "pressure from boss" or something similar.

Therefore there is one (1) person who is dependent upon Reason, is voting for Gary Johnson, and gave no reason - Damon Root. He could be the person pressured by his boss.

For completeness sake, eight people not reliant upon Reason are voting for Gary Johnson. None of them indicated that they are getting "pressure from some Reason guy."

Not that I'm endorsing the conspiracy theory here, but if you're being pressured by your boss to appear to support Gary Johnson, including the statement "my boss told me to" next to your vote would make it a little obvious. After all, if we can assume their boss forced them to vote a certain way, we can assume he forced them not to admit they were being forced to vote a certain way.

stoicbird wrote:Romney is cleverer than Obama, we've seen that during the debates. Romney has more class by far and more compassion.

Face it america. You're a rapidly changing country. You know have females and immigrants deciding who runs your land. Within the next 4 decades America will not function as she has. She sat and watched the richest nations tear each other apart ignoring everything except her own interests.

I watched as a specially hand-picked group of democrats happily waved their flags waiting for Obama to make his speech. Never have I seen such a bunch of none normals in one place. That's your fucking future America, Good luck!

If I was incharge of trident I'd be giving you some of you useless fucks some friendly fire xxxxx

If he was more clevererer he would have won. Instead of embracing the more extreme of the conservative, all he had to do was maintain his obvious and true roots in moderate-land, and he'd have received many more votes, including possibly mine, and I suspect the majority. It was only when he jumped on the ultra-conservative highway, I decided to insure that didn't happen as much as possible. If he even picked a less ultra-conservative running mate, I may have considered it, but he went too far, and paid the price.

I truly, honestly and deeply hope that this has been a real education for everyone, and hopefully this time we can get some compromise instead of bitter in-fighting.

In any case, I would say the closest you should ever come close to being in charge of trident, would be maybe being allowed to chew a pack of it.

thegreekdog wrote:Here you go Symm. Care to analyze this from your perspective? Given the reasons for each person's vote as well as their relative titles and who they work for, I would like some additional analysis as to why you think they are voting for Gary Johnson (if they are voting for Johnson) because of editorial pressures. I would also note that many of them are not voting, which seems counterproductive to your conspiracy theory.

(1) Peter Bagge - cartoonist and author of many graphic novels and comic collections, including his compilation of work for Reason magazine.2012 Vote - Gary Johson "because I agree with him more than any other past or present presidential candidate I can think of2000 Vote - Browne2004 Vote - Kerry2008 Vote - Barr

Conclusion - Not reliant upon Reason for a job. Has indicated a reason for voting for Gary Johnson. He also changed his vote from Libertarian to Democrat to Libertarian from 2000 to 2004 to 2008.

(2) Ronald Bailey - science correspondent at Reason.2012 Vote - Gary Johnson. "This dispiriting and especially mendacious presidential race has sorely tempted me to [not vote]. However, as I explained in 2008, I voted for Obama to punish Republicans. I expected Obama to be a disappointment, but not THIS big a disappointment. The GOP has clearly not yet learned to value both economic and social liberty, so Romney and Ryan won't get my vote."2000 Vote - Bush2004 Vote - Bush2008 Vote - Obama

Conclusion - Reliant upon Reason for a job. Has indicated a reason for voting for Gary Johnson. He also changed his vote from Republican to Democrat in the 2008 election.

Cocnlusion - Reliant upon Reason for a job. Has reasons for not voting at all.

(7) Nick Gillespie - editor-in-chief at Reason.com2012 - Gary Johnson. "For whom I am totally comfortable voting. He won't win, but I hope he has a strong enough showing to make people want to learn more about limited government."2000 - Libertarian2004 - Libertarian2008 - Libertarian

Conclusion - Reliant upon Reason for a job. Has reasons for voting for Johnson. Indicated he has voted Libertarian in each election in 2000, 2004, and 2008 "often without much enthusiasm."

(8) Steven Greenhut - vice president of journalism at the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. Contributor to Reason, the Orange County Register, Bloomberg, and other publications2012 - Not voting2000 - Bush2004 - Bush2008 - Obama

Conclusion - Not reliant upon Reason for a job. Has reasons for not voting. Had reasons for voting for whom he did in 2000, 2004, and 2008 but noted he was shamed by who he voted for.

(9) A. Barton Hinkle - editor and writer for the Richmond Times-Dispatch2012 - Gary Johnson or Mitt Romney "based on the candidate's positions that matter most in the political realm: the role of government in the life of the individual and society"2000, 2004, and 2008 voting record intetionally left blank.

Conclusion - Not reliant upon Reason for a job. Has a reason for voting for Johnson or Romney.

Conclusion - Not reliant upon Reason for a job. Has reasons indicated in the content of the link for voting the way he did.

(11) Manny Klausner - lawyer, former editor of Reason, and co-founder of Reason Foundation2012 - Gary Johnson "because I take liberty seriously, and I live in California - a non-battleground state that Obama will likely win by more than 1,000,000 votes."2000 - Brown2004 - Badnarik2008 - Barr

Conclusion - Not reliant upon Reason for a job. Has reasons indicated in the content of the link for voting the way he did.

Conclusion - Reliant upon Reason for a job. Has reasons indicated in the content of the link for voting the way he did. Changed his vote from Libertarian to Democrat to Libertarian from 2004 to 2008 to 2012.

Conclusion - Not reliant upon Reason for a job. Has reasons indicated in the content of the link for her choices.

(17) Terry Michael - director of the Washington Center for Politics & Journalism and former press secretary for the DNC2012 - Gary Johnson. "I was a professional Democrat for years... [e]ven with that long Democratic pedigree, this year I will be doing what I believe the Democratic Party's founders, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, would do. I'm voting for Gary Johnson... Obama, who I supported in 2008, ramped up another hideous elective war, rammed through corporate welfare for drug companies as "health care reform" and reneged on slowing preosecutions in the assult on freedom known as the War on Drugs." 2000 - Gore2004 - Badnarik2008 - Obama

Conclusion - Not reliant upon Reason for a job. Has reasons indicated in the content of the link for his choices. Went from Democrat to Libertarian to Democrat to Libertarian from 2000 to 2012.

Conclusion - Reliant upon Reason for a job. Has reasons indicated in the content of the link for his choice not to vote.

(19) Garrett Quinn - author of the Less is More blog for the Boston Globe and radio host in Boston2012 - Gary Johnson "because my vote for president in Massachusetts is irrelevant."2000 - Unable to vote2004 - Kerry "because he was from Mass."2008 - Barr

Conclusion - Not reliant upon Reason for a job. Has reasons indicated in the content of the link for his choices. Changed from Democratic to Libertarian from 2004 to 2008.

(20) Anthony Randazzo - director of economic research at Reason Foundation2012 - Gary Johnson. "The more third party candidates like Gov. Johnson can draw at the polls, the greater the possibility that the third-party-candidates-don't-stand-a-chance psychology can be broken."2000 - Unable to vote2004 - Bush2008 - Barr

Conclusion - Reliant upon Reason for a job. Has reasons indicated in the content of the link for his choices. Changed from Republican to Libertarian from 2004 to 2008.

Symmetry wrote:As Saxi pointed out earlier, the folks asked were only people who were editors under the regime, or people who the magazine considered to be solidly libertarian by the editors of the magazine.

Is it really that shocking to you that all of the people employed by the solidly Libertarian Party chief editor and all of the staff went for Johnson or said that they weren't going to vote?

Your poll indicates that my suspicions were correct.

saxitoxin wrote:To Recap -

Sym: Reason is a crazy libertarian website! Correction: Reason is a 50 year-old print magazine named the 21st best magazine in America by the Chicago Tribune

Sym: Reason would naturally only endorse the Libertarian candidate! Correction: In 2008 the plurality of their staff endorsed Barack Obama, the Democrat candidate.

Sym: Well, well ... any difference in 2008 was because of a change in editors. Their 2012 editor wrote a pro-Libertarian book - there was a radical editorial shift! Correction: Their 2008 editor wrote the same book (they were co-authors).

Sym: I DON'T CARE. Reason is the mouthpiece of the Libertarian Party!Correction:Reason pushes an overtly libertarian viewpoint like New Republic pushes an overtly center-left viewpoint. New Republic is not owned by the Democrat Party, Reason is not owned by the Libertarian Party.

If you want to join in discussions about USA politics, I think you need to spend some time educating yourself about the major players in the principal commentary journals, don't you agree? I'm sure you do. You've made yourself look a little silly in this thread by very basic factual errors and wild attempts to cover them up by making even bigger factual errors.

I'm glad you've come around now. Hopefully you will educate yourself a little more before spouting off nonsense.

Symmetry wrote:So you were baiting me to tell me that although your info (well researched by the way) was largely supportive of my point, you wanted to tell me that I was spouting nonsense?

I guess it's a step up from you calling me a troll and/or a moron.

Maybe you are becoming a bit more civil.

I think you probably should spend a bit less time hanging out with Saxitoxin though.

I wasn't baiting you at all. I don't play those kinds of games. Perhaps you should go back to the beginning of this discussion, way back like 5 pages ago. Saxi's summary is good if you don't want to read every post.

In any event, my post wasn't supportive of your point. Your point was that the editorial staff of Reason pressured people to vote for the Libertarian Party. Check page 12 or 13.

After 4 or 5 more pages of posts, it appears you've since changed your point to "they answered in a way someone who writes for Reason would answer," which I still don't agree with (I'll get to that later), but makes a whole lot more sense.

I love Saxi, but have not had the opportunity to hang out with him. I tend to post here because I like to have discussions with other people. I think Saxi likes to be funny (although funny with intelligence is probably more accurate). Your degeneration into whatever it is you're doing these days bothers me only because you used to be a good poster. Given today's posts, with the exception of the above, I think you're getting back to that, which is good.

So let's talk about your new point: People in this link voted (or not voted) were who the magazine deemed to be solidly libertarian. While your point appears well-reasoned and makes sense logically, it's also not accurate. Some of these people said they would vote for Gary Johnson. Some of them said they would not vote. Some of the people who selected Gary Johnson voted for Libertarians in 2000, 2004, and 2008, but not all of them; some of them voted for Democrats or Republicans. And, as I indicated in my initial response to Saxi, I find it fascinating when people change their views on political parties, which is why I recommended that others read it.

Symmetry wrote:So you were baiting me to tell me that although your info (well researched by the way) was largely supportive of my point, you wanted to tell me that I was spouting nonsense?

I guess it's a step up from you calling me a troll and/or a moron.

Maybe you are becoming a bit more civil.

I think you probably should spend a bit less time hanging out with Saxitoxin though.

I wasn't baiting you at all. I don't play those kinds of games. Perhaps you should go back to the beginning of this discussion, way back like 5 pages ago. Saxi's summary is good if you don't want to read every post.

In any event, my post wasn't supportive of your point. Your point was that the editorial staff of Reason pressured people to vote for the Libertarian Party. Check page 12 or 13.

After 4 or 5 more pages of posts, it appears you've since changed your point to "they answered in a way someone who writes for Reason would answer," which I still don't agree with (I'll get to that later), but makes a whole lot more sense.

I love Saxi, but have not had the opportunity to hang out with him. I tend to post here because I like to have discussions with other people. I think Saxi likes to be funny (although funny with intelligence is probably more accurate). Your degeneration into whatever it is you're doing these days bothers me only because you used to be a good poster. Given today's posts, with the exception of the above, I think you're getting back to that, which is good.

So let's talk about your new point: People in this link voted (or not voted) were who the magazine deemed to be solidly libertarian. While your point appears well-reasoned and makes sense logically, it's also not accurate. Some of these people said they would vote for Gary Johnson. Some of them said they would not vote. Some of the people who selected Gary Johnson voted for Libertarians in 2000, 2004, and 2008, but not all of them; some of them voted for Democrats or Republicans. And, as I indicated in my initial response to Saxi, I find it fascinating when people change their views on political parties, which is why I recommended that others read it.

Of course you were baiting, you literally told me that I should stop posting in one of my threads before responding to you in this one, Which has been mostly flaming by you and Saxi of late.

Now you're offering a lot of new data, so my position might change again. I'm generally of the opinion that you're baiting me with the intention of calling me a moron, a troll, or that I'm "spouting nonsense", although you have also changed position during the course of the discussion.

Symmetry wrote:So you were baiting me to tell me that although your info (well researched by the way) was largely supportive of my point, you wanted to tell me that I was spouting nonsense?

I guess it's a step up from you calling me a troll and/or a moron.

Maybe you are becoming a bit more civil.

I think you probably should spend a bit less time hanging out with Saxitoxin though.

I wasn't baiting you at all. I don't play those kinds of games. Perhaps you should go back to the beginning of this discussion, way back like 5 pages ago. Saxi's summary is good if you don't want to read every post.

In any event, my post wasn't supportive of your point. Your point was that the editorial staff of Reason pressured people to vote for the Libertarian Party. Check page 12 or 13.

After 4 or 5 more pages of posts, it appears you've since changed your point to "they answered in a way someone who writes for Reason would answer," which I still don't agree with (I'll get to that later), but makes a whole lot more sense.

I love Saxi, but have not had the opportunity to hang out with him. I tend to post here because I like to have discussions with other people. I think Saxi likes to be funny (although funny with intelligence is probably more accurate). Your degeneration into whatever it is you're doing these days bothers me only because you used to be a good poster. Given today's posts, with the exception of the above, I think you're getting back to that, which is good.

So let's talk about your new point: People in this link voted (or not voted) were who the magazine deemed to be solidly libertarian. While your point appears well-reasoned and makes sense logically, it's also not accurate. Some of these people said they would vote for Gary Johnson. Some of them said they would not vote. Some of the people who selected Gary Johnson voted for Libertarians in 2000, 2004, and 2008, but not all of them; some of them voted for Democrats or Republicans. And, as I indicated in my initial response to Saxi, I find it fascinating when people change their views on political parties, which is why I recommended that others read it.

Of course you were baiting, you literally told me that I should stop posting in one of my threads before responding to you in this one, Which has been mostly flaming by you and Saxi of late.

Now you're offering a lot of new data, so my position might change again. I'm generally of the opinion that you're baiting me with the intention of calling me a moron, a troll, or that I'm "spouting nonsense", although you have also changed position during the course of the discussion.

Can you agree to be civil?

How am I offering new data? The link was posted like five or six pages ago. I asked you for your analysis and you did not provide anything except some "Reason editors pressured them" or "Obviously Reason wanted Libertarians to put their two cents in." I typed a whole ton of shit here. Why? Not because I'm baiting you or flaming you. I basically retyped the article. I did it because I want to inform you. You are clearly uninformed on libertarianism.

When you come out with a conspiracy theory and then don't admit that you're wrong, I believe you're trolling. Did you read the content of the link? Are you going to read the content of the link? If you didn't read the content and made that statement, and continue to make these statements after counterpoints are provided, what else am I supposed to think?

My rant is done. You successfully and officially got me angry. You win. I'll stay away from you on things like this from now on, if only to spare others this stupidity.

Phatscotty wrote:bout time you realize that GD. Symmetry would be okay, there are just so many little things he misses. But it's not his fault.

That's why I will never understand non-Americans who obsess over America. They usually don't know enough to justify their obsession, rather they just hate and then fill in the blanks.

No offense, but you're not much better. You identify yourself as a small government constitutionalist type but make comments like a big government, social conservative. It's fine if you're the latter... just admit it once in a while. I mean c'mon. You voted for Romney.

Symmetry wrote:So you were baiting me to tell me that although your info (well researched by the way) was largely supportive of my point, you wanted to tell me that I was spouting nonsense?

I guess it's a step up from you calling me a troll and/or a moron.

Maybe you are becoming a bit more civil.

I think you probably should spend a bit less time hanging out with Saxitoxin though.

I wasn't baiting you at all. I don't play those kinds of games. Perhaps you should go back to the beginning of this discussion, way back like 5 pages ago. Saxi's summary is good if you don't want to read every post.

In any event, my post wasn't supportive of your point. Your point was that the editorial staff of Reason pressured people to vote for the Libertarian Party. Check page 12 or 13.

After 4 or 5 more pages of posts, it appears you've since changed your point to "they answered in a way someone who writes for Reason would answer," which I still don't agree with (I'll get to that later), but makes a whole lot more sense.

I love Saxi, but have not had the opportunity to hang out with him. I tend to post here because I like to have discussions with other people. I think Saxi likes to be funny (although funny with intelligence is probably more accurate). Your degeneration into whatever it is you're doing these days bothers me only because you used to be a good poster. Given today's posts, with the exception of the above, I think you're getting back to that, which is good.

So let's talk about your new point: People in this link voted (or not voted) were who the magazine deemed to be solidly libertarian. While your point appears well-reasoned and makes sense logically, it's also not accurate. Some of these people said they would vote for Gary Johnson. Some of them said they would not vote. Some of the people who selected Gary Johnson voted for Libertarians in 2000, 2004, and 2008, but not all of them; some of them voted for Democrats or Republicans. And, as I indicated in my initial response to Saxi, I find it fascinating when people change their views on political parties, which is why I recommended that others read it.

Of course you were baiting, you literally told me that I should stop posting in one of my threads before responding to you in this one, Which has been mostly flaming by you and Saxi of late.

Now you're offering a lot of new data, so my position might change again. I'm generally of the opinion that you're baiting me with the intention of calling me a moron, a troll, or that I'm "spouting nonsense", although you have also changed position during the course of the discussion.

Can you agree to be civil?

How am I offering new data? The link was posted like five or six pages ago. I asked you for your analysis and you did not provide anything except some "Reason editors pressured them" or "Obviously Reason wanted Libertarians to put their two cents in." I typed a whole ton of shit here. Why? Not because I'm baiting you or flaming you. I basically retyped the article. I did it because I want to inform you. You are clearly uninformed on libertarianism.

When you come out with a conspiracy theory and then don't admit that you're wrong, I believe you're trolling. Did you read the content of the link? Are you going to read the content of the link? If you didn't read the content and made that statement, and continue to make these statements after counterpoints are provided, what else am I supposed to think?

My rant is done. You successfully and officially got me angry. You win. I'll stay away from you on things like this from now on, if only to spare others this stupidity.

You provided that post as the link you wanted me to reply to. Not anything 5 or 6 pages ago. You asked me to reply to that post. Now you're angry that I didn't reply properly to a different post.

What the hell are you doing dude? You're just baiting and then posting flames.

While I'd like to believe that abortion and gay marriage are important issues, I also know that economic issues trump them in most respects. So, which economic issues are the Republicans not on board wiht?

oVo wrote:Admitting that Wall Street can't monitor itself, the trickle down doesn't work and squeezing extra tax dollars from the wealthy in America is necessary...

of course gay rights, immigration and women's issues too.

Rhetoric aside, what monitoring systems did the Democrats put in or want to put in? I mean, taxes fine... the people that voted for Barack Obama want to raise taxes on the rich, which is debatable as sound economic policy. But how are the Democrats monitoring Wall Street?

stoicbird wrote:Romney is cleverer than Obama, we've seen that during the debates. Romney has more class by far and more compassion.

Face it america. You're a rapidly changing country. You know have females and immigrants deciding who runs your land. Within the next 4 decades America will not function as she has. She sat and watched the richest nations tear each other apart ignoring everything except her own interests.

I watched as a specially hand-picked group of democrats happily waved their flags waiting for Obama to make his speech. Never have I seen such a bunch of none normals in one place. That's your fucking future America, Good luck!

If I was incharge of trident I'd be giving you some of you useless fucks some friendly fire xxxxx

If he was more clevererer he would have won. Instead of embracing the more extreme of the conservative, all he had to do was maintain his obvious and true roots in moderate-land, and he'd have received many more votes, including possibly mine, and I suspect the majority. It was only when he jumped on the ultra-conservative highway, I decided to insure that didn't happen as much as possible. If he even picked a less ultra-conservative running mate, I may have considered it, but he went too far, and paid the price.

I truly, honestly and deeply hope that this has been a real education for everyone, and hopefully this time we can get some compromise instead of bitter in-fighting.

In any case, I would say the closest you should ever come close to being in charge of trident, would be maybe being allowed to chew a pack of it.

50.4% to 48.1%. I think you're reading into this too much.

I think you're not reading enough into it. It is in reality the very fact that it was close, that reinforces my point. Very little would have been needed to swing it the other way, Romney went the wrong way, and paid the price. I think his embracing the more conservative path, actually inspired more people to get out there and vote. I certainly know I myself actually didnt mind the idea of him as president when he was moderate, and being ridiculed by the sociopaths that were vying for the nomination from the beginning. It was only when he jumped on the ultra-conservative bandwagon, instead of staying true to his roots...or history...that he became frightening, especially with his VP pick.

Its odd too, since he obviously had the Republican vote anyways. Most would have voted for big bird himself just to get Obama out of there, so why he didn't cater to the middle, where the election was decided is beyond me.

So my statement stands, and has since been backed up quite regularly in the press. He was not cleverer, he was stupiderer, and in the end, the loserer.

john9blue wrote:"honestly i think martin might be better off dead"

sekretar: "i go to russia and then, without comp, i hoppe, i forgot this shit who kill my nerves long time!"

stoicbird wrote:Obama got 93% of the black vote. 74% of the hispanic vote and still only got 1% more than Romney.

Did he get these votes solely on his issues or just because he's not white? I hope its down to his issues and I hope he can deliver his promises. I wish him well.

Well, I wonder if hispanics were slightly concerned that some of their relatives would be deported by the far more conservative approach to immigration that Romney was likely to implement.

As far as the black vote, I suspect some absolutely related to him as a black, just as many cant relate to him because they are white, but what has been the historical ratio of black voting republican vs democrat in the past? One must see the actual change to discuss it really.

john9blue wrote:"honestly i think martin might be better off dead"

sekretar: "i go to russia and then, without comp, i hoppe, i forgot this shit who kill my nerves long time!"

stoicbird wrote:Romney is cleverer than Obama, we've seen that during the debates. Romney has more class by far and more compassion.

Face it america. You're a rapidly changing country. You know have females and immigrants deciding who runs your land. Within the next 4 decades America will not function as she has. She sat and watched the richest nations tear each other apart ignoring everything except her own interests.

I watched as a specially hand-picked group of democrats happily waved their flags waiting for Obama to make his speech. Never have I seen such a bunch of none normals in one place. That's your fucking future America, Good luck!

If I was incharge of trident I'd be giving you some of you useless fucks some friendly fire xxxxx

If he was more clevererer he would have won. Instead of embracing the more extreme of the conservative, all he had to do was maintain his obvious and true roots in moderate-land, and he'd have received many more votes, including possibly mine, and I suspect the majority. It was only when he jumped on the ultra-conservative highway, I decided to insure that didn't happen as much as possible. If he even picked a less ultra-conservative running mate, I may have considered it, but he went too far, and paid the price.

I truly, honestly and deeply hope that this has been a real education for everyone, and hopefully this time we can get some compromise instead of bitter in-fighting.

In any case, I would say the closest you should ever come close to being in charge of trident, would be maybe being allowed to chew a pack of it.

50.4% to 48.1%. I think you're reading into this too much.

I think you're not reading enough into it. It is in reality the very fact that it was close, that reinforces my point. Very little would have been needed to swing it the other way, Romney went the wrong way, and paid the price. I think his embracing the more conservative path, actually inspired more people to get out there and vote. I certainly know I myself actually didnt mind the idea of him as president when he was moderate, and being ridiculed by the sociopaths that were vying for the nomination from the beginning. It was only when he jumped on the ultra-conservative bandwagon, instead of staying true to his roots...or history...that he became frightening, especially with his VP pick.

Its odd too, since he obviously had the Republican vote anyways. Most would have voted for big bird himself just to get Obama out of there, so why he didn't cater to the middle, where the election was decided is beyond me.

So my statement stands, and has since been backed up quite regularly in the press. He was not cleverer, he was stupiderer, and in the end, the loserer.

Like I've said in another thread, I don't think people didn't vote for Romney because he moved to the conservative side of the social spectrum. I think people had a bad opinion of Romney as a rich, fatcat, white guy who was going to benefit the rich (we have been a true charaterization). If the Republicans had put Rubio or Christie up instead of Romney with the same message, I believe the Republicans would hold the White House.

In other words, I don't think it was social conservatism that lost the presidential election (unfortunately). I think it was a poor candidate. I compare it to the 2004 election. The Democrats should have won, but they didn't because John Kerry was not a good candidate. Romney was not a good candidate.

And I do wish it was social conservatism that lost the election, because then I think it would change the Republican Party.

stoicbird wrote:Romney is cleverer than Obama, we've seen that during the debates. Romney has more class by far and more compassion.

Face it america. You're a rapidly changing country. You know have females and immigrants deciding who runs your land. Within the next 4 decades America will not function as she has. She sat and watched the richest nations tear each other apart ignoring everything except her own interests.

I watched as a specially hand-picked group of democrats happily waved their flags waiting for Obama to make his speech. Never have I seen such a bunch of none normals in one place. That's your fucking future America, Good luck!

If I was incharge of trident I'd be giving you some of you useless fucks some friendly fire xxxxx

If he was more clevererer he would have won. Instead of embracing the more extreme of the conservative, all he had to do was maintain his obvious and true roots in moderate-land, and he'd have received many more votes, including possibly mine, and I suspect the majority. It was only when he jumped on the ultra-conservative highway, I decided to insure that didn't happen as much as possible. If he even picked a less ultra-conservative running mate, I may have considered it, but he went too far, and paid the price.

I truly, honestly and deeply hope that this has been a real education for everyone, and hopefully this time we can get some compromise instead of bitter in-fighting.

In any case, I would say the closest you should ever come close to being in charge of trident, would be maybe being allowed to chew a pack of it.

50.4% to 48.1%. I think you're reading into this too much.

I think you're not reading enough into it. It is in reality the very fact that it was close, that reinforces my point. Very little would have been needed to swing it the other way, Romney went the wrong way, and paid the price. I think his embracing the more conservative path, actually inspired more people to get out there and vote. I certainly know I myself actually didnt mind the idea of him as president when he was moderate, and being ridiculed by the sociopaths that were vying for the nomination from the beginning. It was only when he jumped on the ultra-conservative bandwagon, instead of staying true to his roots...or history...that he became frightening, especially with his VP pick.

Its odd too, since he obviously had the Republican vote anyways. Most would have voted for big bird himself just to get Obama out of there, so why he didn't cater to the middle, where the election was decided is beyond me.

So my statement stands, and has since been backed up quite regularly in the press. He was not cleverer, he was stupiderer, and in the end, the loserer.

Like I've said in another thread, I don't think people didn't vote for Romney because he moved to the conservative side of the social spectrum. I think people had a bad opinion of Romney as a rich, fatcat, white guy who was going to benefit the rich (we have been a true charaterization). If the Republicans had put Rubio or Christie up instead of Romney with the same message, I believe the Republicans would hold the White House.

In other words, I don't think it was social conservatism that lost the presidential election (unfortunately). I think it was a poor candidate. I compare it to the 2004 election. The Democrats should have won, but they didn't because John Kerry was not a good candidate. Romney was not a good candidate.

And I do wish it was social conservatism that lost the election, because then I think it would change the Republican Party.

Well, no doubt you are partially right and obviously there are many underlying reasons why individuals didn't vote for him, and a rich Gordon Gecko was definitely among them., but to discount that many disliked the conservatism, which certainly influenced the vote is far too speculative. In any case, I know that was one of the main reasons I didn't vote for him, and while, suggesting that others think like I do, would be even more speculative, its at least possible.

In any case, its fairly presumptive, to say he couldn't have swung it the other way, with a few changes along the way, or mores specifically, not making so many damn changes, and just sticking with his past moderate policies, that clearly are a large part of his success in life to this point.

john9blue wrote:"honestly i think martin might be better off dead"

sekretar: "i go to russia and then, without comp, i hoppe, i forgot this shit who kill my nerves long time!"